Sharing iP code quality feedback [for @AidenLYT] - Round 2

[nus-se-script]

@AidenLYT We did an automated analysis of your code to detect potential areas to improve the code quality. We are sharing the results below, so that you can avoid similar problems in your tP code (which will be graded more strictly for code quality).

IMPORTANT: Note that the script looked for just a few easy-to-detect problems only, and at-most three example are given i.e., there can be other areas/places to improve.

Aspect: Tab Usage

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Naming boolean variables/methods

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Brace Style

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Package Name Style

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Class Name Style

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Dead Code

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Method Length

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Class size

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Header Comments

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

Aspect: Recent Git Commit Message

possible problems in commit 6947c55:

Change build.gradle to create jar found based on Launcher instead of Taylor

* To accomodate WindowsOS

• Longer than 72 characters

Suggestion: Follow the given conventions for Git commit messages for future commits (do not modify past commit messages as doing so will change the commit timestamp that we used to detect your commit timings).

Aspect: Binary files in repo

No easy-to-detect issues 👍

---

❗ You are not required to (but you are welcome to) fix the above problems in your iP, unless you have been separately asked to resubmit the iP due to code quality issues.

ℹ️ The bot account used to post this issue is un-manned. Do not reply to this post (as those replies will not be read). Instead, contact [email protected] if you want to follow up on this post.